2 & 3) Nobody is saying.
This is an interesting take from someone on the Dispatch Topix board:
1. The first email says nothing about confidentiality. Tressel should have immediately gone to legal and/or compliance with this information. It could have been kept confidential within the department on a need to know basis.
2. The emails clearly indicate that the OSU players in question were selling OSU items for profit. This clearly should have raised a red flag with Tressel. He’s a smart guy and he had to know that this was a very iffy situation, thus the need to involve compliance.
3. If he knew this was going on and that his players were involved in something potentially illegal and/or in violation of NCAA rules, why did he let the players play? He was asked this question and his lame answer was basically “because they could”. Nothing to do with whether they *should*.
4. He signed a letter to the NCAA in September of 2010 stating that he knew of no possible violations at OSU. This was a lie and he knew it. He should have talked to legal or compliance (again!) to seek their guidance on what was to be done.
5. Why not reply to the emailer and say “this information looks like it could indicate my players broke NCAA rules so I need to escalate this...what can I do to protect the confidentiality of this while doing the right thing and reporting violations?” He did not do this.
6. In December, he claimed this was the “first” he knew about it. And then in January of this year, conveniently almost one week after the bowl game, he suddenly wondered if there might be NCAA complications from this.